[2026:JHHC:18950] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2179 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2179 of 2024 ------ 1. Md. Sahban @ Md. Shaban, aged about 48 years, son of Abdul Manan 2. Fahmina Bano, aged about 34 years, wife of Shahbad @ Md. Shabab 3. Md. Moqueen @ Md. Moqueem Siddeque, aged about 42 years, son of Abdul Manan All residents of House No. 351, Muslim Basti, Bhalubasa, P.O. & P.S.- Sitaramdera, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shakib Kayum, son of Late Abdul Kayum, resident of House No. 351, Muslim Basti, Bhalubasa, P.O. & P.S. – Sitaramdera, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though the opposite party No.2 has put in his appearing through Advocate yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. [2026:JHHC:18950] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2179 of 2024 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of the Complaint case No.6086 of 2022 including the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with the said case whereby and where the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, on 24.08.2022 at about 5 pm, the petitioners made the allegations against the complainant that he has committed theft of the wires of the motor and the petitioner No.1 and 2 being armed with lathi started assaulting the complainant and while he was coming out, the petitioner No.3 assaulted the complainant on his back with a danda (stick) on the back of the complainant repeatedly because of which, she became senseless and he was taken to the hospital for treatment. There is further allegation that the petitioner No.1 along with others is threatening to murder the complainant if the complainant proceeds with the house constructed by his aunt unless extortion amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is paid to him. 5. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has found the prima [2026:JHHC:18950] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2179 of 2024 facie case against the petitioners as already indicated above and issued summons against them. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neelu Chopra & Another vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184, para-9 & 10 of which reads as under:- “9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. 10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.” and submits that in this case, the allegations against the petitioners are vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is exactly the role played by which of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Susanta Kumar Dalei @ Susanta Kumar Dalai Vs. State of Odisha (Vigilance) reported in 2026 INSC 510, para-19 of which reads as under:- [2026:JHHC:18950] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2179 of 2024 “19. In any criminal case, there must be clear and specific material that shows the accused might have committed the crime. A case cannot be allowed to continue based only on guesses or vague statements. In this case, the material does not show any direct involvement of the Appellant in the crime. The accusations are made against a group of people together and do not explain what exactly the Appellant is supposed to have done. Such broad and general claims, without mentioning the Appellant’s individual role, are not enough to continue with the trial.” and submits that in this case, as there is no clear and specific material to show that the accused might have committed the crime, hence, the materials are inadequate for committing the offence in respect of which the prima facie case has been found out against the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the case is next fixed to 10.09.2026 for appearance of the accused. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 and 2 being armed with lathi started assaulting the complainant and while he was coming out, the petitioner No.3 assaulted the complainant on his back with a danda (stick) repeatedly resulting in his becoming senseless and he was to be taken to the hospital for his [2026:JHHC:18950] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2179 of 2024 treatment which is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that there is also direct and specific allegation against the petitioner No.1 of threatening the complainant to kill him if he proceeds with the house constructed by him aunt without giving the extortion of Rs.5,00,000/- which amounts to the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that at this nascent stage, the entire criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed and set aside and this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner No.3 of causing hurt to the complainant on 24.08.2022 at about 5 pm by assaulting his on his back repeatedly in such a manner that he became senseless and was to be taken to the nursing home; which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. So far as the involvement of other accused persons in that occurrence is concerned, in para-3 of the complaint, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner No.1 and 2 also being armed with lathi started assaulting the complainant and while he was coming out, the petitioner No.3 assaulted the complainant on his back. [2026:JHHC:18950] 6 Cr. M.P. No.2179 of 2024 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in para-5 of the complaint, it has been specifically mentioned that on 25.08.2022, inter alia the petitioner No.2 & 3 threatened the complainant with injury by putting a knife (chopper) at his neck and threatened that unless he pays Rs.5,00,000/- as extortion, they will not allow him to construct his house. There is also specific allegation against the petitioner No.1 that he is threatening to commit murder of the complainant unless he pays the extortion amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and without giving the extortion amount, he proceeds with the construction of the house. This, in the considered opinion of this Court, is prima facie sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is to be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 29th of June, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 06/07/2026